"Simply put, although the sorts of changes I advocate would benefit the organisation, they do not benefit the individuals who are the position to influence them"
The Iron Law of Institutions, created by political blogger Jon Schwarz, states:
”The people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution."
I've seen this myself, and to my cost. There are leaders who see their role as transitory and as a temporary stewardship of the organisation but they are pretty rare. They are blessed with a strong sense of self and confidence in their abilities. These are not the traits we find predominant in those that control institutions.
Reading you and Ted Bauer can be painful. I grasp the edges of the screen, knuckles whitening, eyes slightly bugging in an unblinking glare of hatred, thinking, "This bastard stole my ideas!" I then force myself to relax, and once more go through the mental rebalancing of understanding that bad management is ubiquitous, and just because I've had some pretty obvious "revelations" about how to fix work, and I write about them (paulhobin.com), it doesn't make me unique. It is all frustratingly obvious.
I could comment in half a dozen different directions based on this article. I choose the unrestrained focus on stockholder value NOW. This year's numbers are more important than next year's. Hell, this quarter's numbers are more important than next quarter's. As long as this is true, the whip-yielding bastards will always reign because they're bleeding the organization for pennies now without regard to the festering damage those wounds will yield tomorrow. Sure, that's a melodramatic turn of phrase, but Boeing's CEO Dennis Muilenburg bled Boeing and boosted the stock to put a cheap upgrade to the revered 737 line on the market when Boeing knew (from its own email traffic) that it was defective. (Peter Robison, Flying Blind. Doubleday, 2021) That deserves some melodramatic phrasing.
I commend not just what you write, but that you ARE writing. In my career I've set myself apart from colleagues in large institutions (smallest employer: 14,000 people) by refusing to believe in the impossibility of change, as most insist. It's hard as hell, sure. But if we don't even try, of course we're not going to get the change we believe in. Keep writing. Push the change. And I'll keep being ticked that "I already said that!!!" and thankful that you did too.
Thanks Paul! I don't think you are being melodramatic, many lives are impoverished because of the decisions these people make and some people die because of them. I agree that the focus on stockholder value, but only over a ridiculously short time frame, is the root cause of much of this behaviour. Milton Freidmann has a hell of a lot to answer for as the lead apologist for this psychopathic business philosophy.
I don't profess to say anything especially new or revelatory, I only claim to say the things that are not being said nearly enough. We need a lot more people shouting this from the rooftops to get it heard above the platitudinous babble of the business press and the HBS/Academia/Big Consultancy complex. You keep shouting too!
Great read. Rarely will the incentives be in place to reward the four behaviours for what “great” looks like. As an example, all organisations will say they want more collaboration and teamwork, yet just about do everything possible to ensure it doesn’t happen.
That's pretty much what got me started on this beat. In the first half of my career, I did innovation in a collaborative way in quiet entrepreneurial units. Then we got brought into 'the mainstream' and everything seemed designed to stop me doing the very thing they kept saying they wanted. It drove me nuts then and it's still the itch I keep scratching.
Of course, if leadership saw their role as creating the conditions that enable the right sort of things to happen (which is what I believe it is), then it would actually be quite easy to get the four behaviours, as a the organisations selected have proven.
"Simply put, although the sorts of changes I advocate would benefit the organisation, they do not benefit the individuals who are the position to influence them"
see https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_institutions -
The Iron Law of Institutions, created by political blogger Jon Schwarz, states:
”The people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution."
I've seen this myself, and to my cost. There are leaders who see their role as transitory and as a temporary stewardship of the organisation but they are pretty rare. They are blessed with a strong sense of self and confidence in their abilities. These are not the traits we find predominant in those that control institutions.
"Democrats And The Iron Law Of Institutions", A Tiny Revolution, 5 September 2007: http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001705.html
Reading you and Ted Bauer can be painful. I grasp the edges of the screen, knuckles whitening, eyes slightly bugging in an unblinking glare of hatred, thinking, "This bastard stole my ideas!" I then force myself to relax, and once more go through the mental rebalancing of understanding that bad management is ubiquitous, and just because I've had some pretty obvious "revelations" about how to fix work, and I write about them (paulhobin.com), it doesn't make me unique. It is all frustratingly obvious.
I could comment in half a dozen different directions based on this article. I choose the unrestrained focus on stockholder value NOW. This year's numbers are more important than next year's. Hell, this quarter's numbers are more important than next quarter's. As long as this is true, the whip-yielding bastards will always reign because they're bleeding the organization for pennies now without regard to the festering damage those wounds will yield tomorrow. Sure, that's a melodramatic turn of phrase, but Boeing's CEO Dennis Muilenburg bled Boeing and boosted the stock to put a cheap upgrade to the revered 737 line on the market when Boeing knew (from its own email traffic) that it was defective. (Peter Robison, Flying Blind. Doubleday, 2021) That deserves some melodramatic phrasing.
I commend not just what you write, but that you ARE writing. In my career I've set myself apart from colleagues in large institutions (smallest employer: 14,000 people) by refusing to believe in the impossibility of change, as most insist. It's hard as hell, sure. But if we don't even try, of course we're not going to get the change we believe in. Keep writing. Push the change. And I'll keep being ticked that "I already said that!!!" and thankful that you did too.
Thanks Paul! I don't think you are being melodramatic, many lives are impoverished because of the decisions these people make and some people die because of them. I agree that the focus on stockholder value, but only over a ridiculously short time frame, is the root cause of much of this behaviour. Milton Freidmann has a hell of a lot to answer for as the lead apologist for this psychopathic business philosophy.
I don't profess to say anything especially new or revelatory, I only claim to say the things that are not being said nearly enough. We need a lot more people shouting this from the rooftops to get it heard above the platitudinous babble of the business press and the HBS/Academia/Big Consultancy complex. You keep shouting too!
Great read. Rarely will the incentives be in place to reward the four behaviours for what “great” looks like. As an example, all organisations will say they want more collaboration and teamwork, yet just about do everything possible to ensure it doesn’t happen.
That's pretty much what got me started on this beat. In the first half of my career, I did innovation in a collaborative way in quiet entrepreneurial units. Then we got brought into 'the mainstream' and everything seemed designed to stop me doing the very thing they kept saying they wanted. It drove me nuts then and it's still the itch I keep scratching.
Of course, if leadership saw their role as creating the conditions that enable the right sort of things to happen (which is what I believe it is), then it would actually be quite easy to get the four behaviours, as a the organisations selected have proven.